Quite surprised by the voting. I thought this would be close to 50/50 but a substantial majority are saying Vettel isn't top 10 or even necessarily top 15.

What could Vettel do to "redeem himself"?

I guess show that he can beat a tier 1 driver in the same car?

Leaving Red Bull after getting beat easily by Ricciardo didn't help, then you have the last 2 years when he had a title contending car, sure in 2017 reliability issues would have scuppered him anyway but he was already getting beaten before that.

However for Vettel the priority is winning another title and not directly going up against the likes of Hamilton or Verstappen, and as for Leclerc we can't be sure how good he actually is?

Quite surprised by the voting. I thought this would be close to 50/50 but a substantial majority are saying Vettel isn't top 10 or even necessarily top 15.

What could Vettel do to "redeem himself"?

Go back in time and not crumble against Hamilton between 2017 and 2018?

I think there's no going back for Vettel. 2014 could have been a blip on the radar; he was demotivated, he knew the car couldn't win the title, he was already leaving - take your pick of the excuses. Until 2017, it was the only real blot on his claim to being an all-time great, and for a lot of people his great season in 2015 immediately undid a lot of the harm.

But then you come to 2017, when for the first time we really got to see Vettel vs. Hamilton in equal cars. It left most people with little doubt that Hamilton was better, and even worse, it was followed up by 2018 - when Vettel had an actually superior car and completely failed to match Hamilton. You can't be that severely outclassed by a rival and still be an all-time great, and for me those were the two years that lost it for him.

If he'd done as well as Prost did in a similar situation in 1990 - superior Ferrari car against an all-time great rival - I'd be happy to include him alongside Hamilton, like I have with Prost and Senna. But he didn't do anywhere near as well.

What if a (quite miraculous) situation happened and Ferrari are roughly equal with Merc in 2020 and 2021 but Vettel wins the titles against Hamilton whilst also fending off Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen? I know, I know -- it's really farfetched.

Well for Ferrari to be roughly equal is not far fetched because they managed that in 2017 and 2018.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

So being statistically the best doesn't mean a driver is automatically in the conversation for GOAT?

Not in the scenario that you paint of a protected driver because that's what he would have to be when you have drivers that are perceived to be better than him but are out of contract yet Ferrari persist with Vettel, one of which would be Verstappen a driver 11 years younger than him.

Wonder what the results of that poll would be if it was posted at the end of the 2013 season...But no, he is obviously not close to bein an all time great despite his 4 world titles.

He would have been in a lot more people's which demonstrates the danger of basing it on recent results.

I think the second part of your post demonstrates that quite well too though. He is clearly a great, though top 10 is certainly debatable. The saying you're only as good as your last race is a saying for a reason, more recent results stick in peoples mind and I think Vettel is in danger of being underrated overall as a result.

I disagree, in 2013 he hadn't had a bad year yet.

He was a young driver who was very quick but prone to a lot of accidents and errors, 2007-2010. Accidents are forgiveable for young drivers. 2011-2013 he had ironed out the errors and gone up a level and could have been one of the greatest of all time. He was still in contention.

But, the question mark was, how good was Webber, how will he do against other drivers. His performance since have him as a very good driver but not an all time great and the errors came back when the pressure was on.

Up until 2014, he would have been in my top 10. Now I would say he is about top 20-25 but he could still end up top 15 ish if he has another good 4-5 years but my gut feeling is the coming years will cement him as more top 25 material.

But that's just it… The pressure is way up for several reasons, but mostly because Ferrari is in a car that's ever so slightly inferior to the Mercedes and he's trying everything and then some to make up for the deficit and in doing so, he's constantly looking for the ultimate limit and ways to exceed it, and in doing so he's lost it. One cannot fault him for that. that is precisely what ALL drivers should be trying to do in order to claw back as much performance to those whom have a faster package. I'd rather see him go balls to the wall and losing it than playing it safe to keep from going off-track or spinning because then I know he's giving everything.

I've done that very thing in karts… trying to keep up with guys that were simply so dialed in that I couldn't reel them in so I looked to copy their lines and braking points and THEN in looking to other areas where I could perhaps gain a 10th or even 100th, I ended up just post the limit and either spam or had to veer off the prime line and into the marbles or off-track and ended up losing out. That's just the nature of the beast. Leclerc is still being hyped as the great white hope (some of you older guys might get the reference) yet Vettel is beating him thus far. Yes the team made a couple of calls that cost Leclerc, but if they hadn't intervened the difference would be marginal at best and they'd be about equal. So if Leclerc is so great than so too must be Vettel. I find Vettel to be in the elite club and Leclerc is on a similar level.

I agree in part, but that just addresses Vettels errors the other elephant in the room is his lack of speed in 2014 against Ricciardo and now against Leclerc.

His speed was without question before 2014. Now he has questions on his errors, speed and adaptability.

Moss is an all time great imo and many other people's. This shows that the number of WECs a driver has is not the be all and end all.

How many people have Moss in their top 10?

I do.

We all know that, your top 10 list I believe contains about 70% of the drivers from the 50's and 60s?

I have a few from that period-Clark obviously- and Moss would be around my top ten too. The beauty of being old is that you have actually witnessed these guys hammering it through Copse, out of Clearways (theirs a reason that bit is called Clark ) and Stowe. When you spend time watching these guys in the flesh over the years you don't have to wait to see their number or helmet to know who it is. They just take your breath away and you are left wondering how they do it. It's a shame, but there is no way television can ever capture what these top guys can do when they are on the ragged edge. I watch and see how most F1 drivers do what they do; even though I can't do it myself. But when it comes to sitting at Club for instance watching the likes of a Schumacher or Hamilton taking that corner I just sit in awe. It's like they are defying physics. Moss was one of those.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

Even then how many one time champions make the list?

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

Even then how many one time champions make the list?

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

I think they're actually both the same, to be in a GOAT argument first of all you have to be seen at least as the best of your era, I don't believe either fall into that category?

This thread itself is about being a top 10 great, in that respect winning more than one title seems to be the first requirement?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

Even then how many one time champions make the list?

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

I think they're actually both the same, to be in a GOAT argument first of all you have to be seen at least as the best of your era, I don't believe either fall into that category?

This thread itself is about being a top 10 great, in that respect winning more than one title seems to be the first requirement?

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

So being statistically the best doesn't mean a driver is automatically in the conversation for GOAT?

That’s right – it would depend how he achieved those successes and how he performed against his peers over his career. It’s not surprising for some that now we’ve been watching Vettel for 12/13 years (compared to some who got a little carried away after 6) there are chinks in the armour and it’s fair to say that he would struggle to achieve that in equal cars against certain drivers. Vettel is a very good driver and his success adds to his marketability which means that he may well have further opportunities in top teams. However, there are now more question marks so his chances of getting a team set-up around him to provide the springboard are diminishing, because potential and longevity are also big factors for the teams. He has a fight on his hand at Ferrari and if he can come out on top then he’ll give himself a chance if they come good. But based on his overall career, it looks more likely to me that LeClerc will push on and eventually get the nod, as he has strong pace given his relative inexperience. LeClerc is still much of an unknown though, so there may be very little between the two. That could make for a tricky situation at Ferrrari.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

Even then how many one time champions make the list?

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

I think they're actually both the same, to be in a GOAT argument first of all you have to be seen at least as the best of your era, I don't believe either fall into that category?

This thread itself is about being a top 10 great, in that respect winning more than one title seems to be the first requirement?

Not necessarily. Moss would be a legitimate choice in the top 10.

He doesn't appear on the top 10 lists that I've seen recently in respect to majority opinion.

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

I think they're actually both the same, to be in a GOAT argument first of all you have to be seen at least as the best of your era, I don't believe either fall into that category?

This thread itself is about being a top 10 great, in that respect winning more than one title seems to be the first requirement?

Not necessarily. Moss would be a legitimate choice in the top 10.

He doesn't appear on the top 10 lists that I've seen recently in respect to majority opinion.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

Wonder what the results of that poll would be if it was posted at the end of the 2013 season...But no, he is obviously not close to bein an all time great despite his 4 world titles.

He would have been in a lot more people's which demonstrates the danger of basing it on recent results.

I think the second part of your post demonstrates that quite well too though. He is clearly a great, though top 10 is certainly debatable. The saying you're only as good as your last race is a saying for a reason, more recent results stick in peoples mind and I think Vettel is in danger of being underrated overall as a result.

I disagree, in 2013 he hadn't had a bad year yet.

He was a young driver who was very quick but prone to a lot of accidents and errors, 2007-2010. Accidents are forgiveable for young drivers. 2011-2013 he had ironed out the errors and gone up a level and could have been one of the greatest of all time. He was still in contention.

But, the question mark was, how good was Webber, how will he do against other drivers. His performance since have him as a very good driver but not an all time great and the errors came back when the pressure was on.

Up until 2014, he would have been in my top 10. Now I would say he is about top 20-25 but he could still end up top 15 ish if he has another good 4-5 years but my gut feeling is the coming years will cement him as more top 25 material.

But that's just it… The pressure is way up for several reasons, but mostly because Ferrari is in a car that's ever so slightly inferior to the Mercedes and he's trying everything and then some to make up for the deficit and in doing so, he's constantly looking for the ultimate limit and ways to exceed it, and in doing so he's lost it. One cannot fault him for that. that is precisely what ALL drivers should be trying to do in order to claw back as much performance to those whom have a faster package. I'd rather see him go balls to the wall and losing it than playing it safe to keep from going off-track or spinning because then I know he's giving everything.

I've done that very thing in karts… trying to keep up with guys that were simply so dialed in that I couldn't reel them in so I looked to copy their lines and braking points and THEN in looking to other areas where I could perhaps gain a 10th or even 100th, I ended up just post the limit and either spam or had to veer off the prime line and into the marbles or off-track and ended up losing out. That's just the nature of the beast. Leclerc is still being hyped as the great white hope (some of you older guys might get the reference) yet Vettel is beating him thus far. Yes the team made a couple of calls that cost Leclerc, but if they hadn't intervened the difference would be marginal at best and they'd be about equal. So if Leclerc is so great than so too must be Vettel. I find Vettel to be in the elite club and Leclerc is on a similar level.

That's simply not true, last year Hamilton was having to pull out all of the stops against a better Ferrari and was leading inspite of that because of mistakes made by Vettel and poor wet driving.

I disagree. Initially the Ferrari was the best car and Vettel did well enough. Not perfect, but solid. Then Mercedes clawed their way back to close the gap and then surpass the Ferrari and Vettel found himself having to fight with a car that was at a disadvantage.

The Qualifying battle pretty much sums it up with Hamilton beating Vettel 14 times and Vettel besting Hamilton 7 times, and 7 times he was out qualified by both Mercs. So that is telling in that in order to challenge the Silver Arrows, Vettel had to push to the limit having started behind, and stay there for complete race distances, and had to exceed the limit to find more speed. Twice he mucked it up on his own, but I wouldn't say he was terrible, not by a country mile. This year the Ferrari has been better only on a select few circuits and the Mercedes at most with the Red Bull in Verstappen's hands being a serious contender a couple of times. What no one has talked about in details as of yet (at least that I've seen) is that Red Bull's extreme rake setup, which is being copied now, only not to the same extreme, is in effect behaving much like ground effects and they're figuring out how to plant the car more solidly because of it. Coupled with their shorter wheelbase, the Red Bull can corner better and more quickly than everyone else which is how and why they dominate in certain sectors and tracks. As well, the Honda engine is also pretty damn fast this year and it still sounds incredible… Clearly the best sounding engine in F1.

The Ferrari this year slots in between the Mercs and the Red Bulls but it's usually not that far off in terms of pace. Leclerc made a mistake that cost him big points once, and Ferrari "strategies" cost him big time and Vettel as well to a lesser degree.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

Given his absurd number of consistent wins and runner ups throughout his career, I can see that, but F1 has always been the most elite series and "IN" F1 he was excellent, but seldom elite. It seems his forte was driving larger heavier and full-bodied cars better than anyone else, but the lighter more nimble F1 cars were more difficult for him to distinguish himself in quite the same way.

Anyhow this thread is about Vettel being a Top-Ten All-Time great so we should keep it on track.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

He would have been in a lot more people's which demonstrates the danger of basing it on recent results.

I think the second part of your post demonstrates that quite well too though. He is clearly a great, though top 10 is certainly debatable. The saying you're only as good as your last race is a saying for a reason, more recent results stick in peoples mind and I think Vettel is in danger of being underrated overall as a result.

I disagree, in 2013 he hadn't had a bad year yet.

He was a young driver who was very quick but prone to a lot of accidents and errors, 2007-2010. Accidents are forgiveable for young drivers. 2011-2013 he had ironed out the errors and gone up a level and could have been one of the greatest of all time. He was still in contention.

But, the question mark was, how good was Webber, how will he do against other drivers. His performance since have him as a very good driver but not an all time great and the errors came back when the pressure was on.

Up until 2014, he would have been in my top 10. Now I would say he is about top 20-25 but he could still end up top 15 ish if he has another good 4-5 years but my gut feeling is the coming years will cement him as more top 25 material.

But that's just it… The pressure is way up for several reasons, but mostly because Ferrari is in a car that's ever so slightly inferior to the Mercedes and he's trying everything and then some to make up for the deficit and in doing so, he's constantly looking for the ultimate limit and ways to exceed it, and in doing so he's lost it. One cannot fault him for that. that is precisely what ALL drivers should be trying to do in order to claw back as much performance to those whom have a faster package. I'd rather see him go balls to the wall and losing it than playing it safe to keep from going off-track or spinning because then I know he's giving everything.

I've done that very thing in karts… trying to keep up with guys that were simply so dialed in that I couldn't reel them in so I looked to copy their lines and braking points and THEN in looking to other areas where I could perhaps gain a 10th or even 100th, I ended up just post the limit and either spam or had to veer off the prime line and into the marbles or off-track and ended up losing out. That's just the nature of the beast. Leclerc is still being hyped as the great white hope (some of you older guys might get the reference) yet Vettel is beating him thus far. Yes the team made a couple of calls that cost Leclerc, but if they hadn't intervened the difference would be marginal at best and they'd be about equal. So if Leclerc is so great than so too must be Vettel. I find Vettel to be in the elite club and Leclerc is on a similar level.

That's simply not true, last year Hamilton was having to pull out all of the stops against a better Ferrari and was leading inspite of that because of mistakes made by Vettel and poor wet driving.

I disagree. Initially the Ferrari was the best car and Vettel did well enough. Not perfect, but solid. Then Mercedes clawed their way back to close the gap and then surpass the Ferrari and Vettel found himself having to fight with a car that was at a disadvantage.

The Qualifying battle pretty much sums it up with Hamilton beating Vettel 14 times and Vettel besting Hamilton 7 times, and 7 times he was out qualified by both Mercs. So that is telling in that in order to challenge the Silver Arrows, Vettel had to push to the limit having started behind, and stay there for complete race distances, and had to exceed the limit to find more speed. Twice he mucked it up on his own, but I wouldn't say he was terrible, not by a country mile. This year the Ferrari has been better only on a select few circuits and the Mercedes at most with the Red Bull in Verstappen's hands being a serious contender a couple of times. What no one has talked about in details as of yet (at least that I've seen) is that Red Bull's extreme rake setup, which is being copied now, only not to the same extreme, is in effect behaving much like ground effects and they're figuring out how to plant the car more solidly because of it. Coupled with their shorter wheelbase, the Red Bull can corner better and more quickly than everyone else which is how and why they dominate in certain sectors and tracks. As well, the Honda engine is also pretty damn fast this year and it still sounds incredible… Clearly the best sounding engine in F1.

The Ferrari this year slots in between the Mercs and the Red Bulls but it's usually not that far off in terms of pace. Leclerc made a mistake that cost him big points once, and Ferrari "strategies" cost him big time and Vettel as well to a lesser degree.

Revisionary work at it's best, in 2018 the Ferrari was the better car more often than not up to Monza which was round 14 two thirds of the way through the season, I believe in the appropriate thread we had it 9-5 to Ferrari?

Yet after Monza Hamilton had a 30 point lead despite having a mechanical failure in Austria against Vettel's 100% reliable car, the one fighting the uphill battle was Hamilton and not Vettel, after Monza fair enough the wheels started to fall off for Ferrari whereupon then you can compile all the nice stats in favour of Mercedes.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

Hasn't this been around for a long time with only the stats updated? For example Hamilton's career summary ends 2009 and Vettel described as a championship contender and no more.

Yes I wanted to come back to that to ask when that was published, as I said the sand of times will push Moss further down the list.

Look. This is all subjective. All of it. Any list from any period is subjective. My point, seemingly days ago, was that just because SV has multiple WDC's to his name does not make him automatically a top 10. My evidence for this was the fact that Moss often crops up high in all time F1 drivers despite zero WDCs. That's all. Yes, LH will have pushed him down the list a little, but not too far.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

Given his absurd number of consistent wins and runner ups throughout his career, I can see that, but F1 has always been the most elite series and "IN" F1 he was excellent, but seldom elite. It seems his forte was driving larger heavier and full-bodied cars better than anyone else, but the lighter more nimble F1 cars were more difficult for him to distinguish himself in quite the same way.

Anyhow this thread is about Vettel being a Top-Ten All-Time great so we should keep it on track.

The Moss situation is keeping it on track because he's a great analogy of why WDCs are not too critical in terms of racking drivers.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

So being statistically the best doesn't mean a driver is automatically in the conversation for GOAT?

Not in the scenario that you paint of a protected driver because that's what he would have to be when you have drivers that are perceived to be better than him but are out of contract yet Ferrari persist with Vettel, one of which would be Verstappen a driver 11 years younger than him.

Agree with your thoughts. The scenario painted above would only reaffirm my thoughts that he’s a flat track bully, and needs to have the best car and the best conditions in order for him to win. When his backs against the wall and he needs to fight, he’s accident prone.

Compare him to Max, he’s a fighter, and has proven he doesn’t need the best car to perform and win races. What’s my point? I don’t know, I seem to have lost my train of thought.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

So being statistically the best doesn't mean a driver is automatically in the conversation for GOAT?

Not in the scenario that you paint of a protected driver because that's what he would have to be when you have drivers that are perceived to be better than him but are out of contract yet Ferrari persist with Vettel, one of which would be Verstappen a driver 11 years younger than him.

Agree with your thoughts. The scenario painted above would only reaffirm my thoughts that he’s a flat track bully, and needs to have the best car and the best conditions in order for him to win. When his backs against the wall and he needs to fight, he’s accident prone.

Compare him to Max, he’s a fighter, and has proven he doesn’t need the best car to perform and win races. What’s my point? I don’t know, I seem to have lost my train of thought.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

Hasn't this been around for a long time with only the stats updated? For example Hamilton's career summary ends 2009 and Vettel described as a championship contender and no more.

Yes I wanted to come back to that to ask when that was published, as I said the sand of times will push Moss further down the list.

Look. This is all subjective. All of it. Any list from any period is subjective. My point, seemingly days ago, was that just because SV has multiple WDC's to his name does not make him automatically a top 10. My evidence for this was the fact that Moss often crops up high in all time F1 drivers despite zero WDCs. That's all. Yes, LH will have pushed him down the list a little, but not too far.

I'm not saying that Moss would not be in a top 20 list just that a driver with no title is gradually going to slip down the list, it was 50 years since he raced in F1 and maintaining a top 10 ranking against future multiple world champions is not sustainable.

So if Ferrari build a dominant car for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Vettel wins every WDC and becomes statistically the best of all time does he have to be in the GOAT conversation?

Not GOAT because he never proved himself against the best drivers, he just did another Red Bull basically.

So being statistically the best doesn't mean a driver is automatically in the conversation for GOAT?

Not in the scenario that you paint of a protected driver because that's what he would have to be when you have drivers that are perceived to be better than him but are out of contract yet Ferrari persist with Vettel, one of which would be Verstappen a driver 11 years younger than him.

Agree with your thoughts. The scenario painted above would only reaffirm my thoughts that he’s a flat track bully, and needs to have the best car and the best conditions in order for him to win. When his backs against the wall and he needs to fight, he’s accident prone.

Compare him to Max, he’s a fighter, and has proven he doesn’t need the best car to perform and win races. What’s my point? I don’t know, I seem to have lost my train of thought.

That can happen to me as well but after multiple posts not just the one post.

Just going off drivers I've seen race, I would say for definite that Hamilton, Alonso, Schumacher, Verstappen and Hakkinen were better.

Then there are the maybes:Ricciardo - I know it was only 1 season but Sebs confidence should have been sky high. Settled in the team, just won 4 WDC and about 10 races in a row, then Dan came in and whooped him.Kimi - I know Seb beat them in a head to head but I'd say 2003-2007 Kimi was a different beast.

It's so hard to say. Has Seb really done anything that Button didn't do in the first 7 races of 2009 but stretched out over 4 years? What about Montoya? 7 poles in 2002 against that Ferrari was quite something. Put a fading Webber in the other car and he could well have been 2003 Champion. I'm not saying these two are better than Seb but I can't make a conclusive argument that they are worse.

It is funny that Max's name is being taken for an all-time list of any kind at this point in his career.He is a boy wonder, so were many others including Vettel himself at the beginning of their career. I wouldn't put any modern driver on any list before they complete 8-10 seasons in F1 or win at least 1 championship.

Thing is, I would also not judge any current driver even comparing them to their peers from their eras only to the older ones. The sport is not the same, neither is driver mentality and the risks they take are not the same. This is the era of safer F1. I would keep past drivers from last century in their own league.

In the modern era, that is from 2001 onwards, Vettel is easily top 5 alongside Schumacher, Hamilton, Alonso and Rosberg.

Kimi, Mika, Button, Massa and Rubens will complete my top 10.

I will not put Max or Ricciardo on this list just yet but I see Max easily beating out bottom 5 on that list in coming years. There is a big question mark on Ricciardo at the moment after his Renault move. I am worried he will end up being another Heidfeld or Hulkenberg.

Ricciardo is in his 9th season and you are still waiting to make a judgement? He already has the same race starts as Senna and Hakkinen.

Heidfeld or Hulkenberg didn't even win a race, Hulkenberg hasn't even had a podium. Ricciardo has 29 podiums, 7 wins, has beaten a 4x world champion fair and square over a season and been quicker than every teammate he has ever had, baring Max Verstappen. There is no comparison. Massa holds the record for most defeats to a teammate in F1 history, 12 seasons.

Oh I had made a judgement, and he is not in my top 10 of this century, let alone all the time. Not yet.Like it or not, Ricciardo has been in best, second-best or 3rd best car. Has been in regular race-winning cars since he started winning. Heidfeld and Hulk never got this chance in their career and He might have done that to himself by moving to Renault. So no, he won't make into my top 10 driver list until he wins the championship. Same reason Even Max is still not on the list yet. Fighting for the championship is what shows the real character of a racing driver and until that happens, I will not put Ric in my list of top 10 drivers of even this century. The big question mark I mentioned is about Ricciardo's future and the legacy he will leave behind if he does not win the championship after moving to Renault by giving up Redbull seat. He will be quickly forgotten and never be mentioned in all-time greats if he does not win the championship.

All the drivers I mentioned in my top 10 have done that. Either won championships or came really close to winning it by fighting for the whole season. Rubens is reluctant 10th on that list only because he has more wins than others and Villeneuve was well past his prime after 2001.

But that's just it… The pressure is way up for several reasons, but mostly because Ferrari is in a car that's ever so slightly inferior to the Mercedes and he's trying everything and then some to make up for the deficit and in doing so, he's constantly looking for the ultimate limit and ways to exceed it, and in doing so he's lost it. One cannot fault him for that. that is precisely what ALL drivers should be trying to do in order to claw back as much performance to those whom have a faster package. I'd rather see him go balls to the wall and losing it than playing it safe to keep from going off-track or spinning because then I know he's giving everything.

I've done that very thing in karts… trying to keep up with guys that were simply so dialed in that I couldn't reel them in so I looked to copy their lines and braking points and THEN in looking to other areas where I could perhaps gain a 10th or even 100th, I ended up just post the limit and either spam or had to veer off the prime line and into the marbles or off-track and ended up losing out. That's just the nature of the beast. Leclerc is still being hyped as the great white hope (some of you older guys might get the reference) yet Vettel is beating him thus far. Yes the team made a couple of calls that cost Leclerc, but if they hadn't intervened the difference would be marginal at best and they'd be about equal. So if Leclerc is so great than so too must be Vettel. I find Vettel to be in the elite club and Leclerc is on a similar level.

That's simply not true, last year Hamilton was having to pull out all of the stops against a better Ferrari and was leading inspite of that because of mistakes made by Vettel and poor wet driving.

I disagree. Initially the Ferrari was the best car and Vettel did well enough. Not perfect, but solid. Then Mercedes clawed their way back to close the gap and then surpass the Ferrari and Vettel found himself having to fight with a car that was at a disadvantage.

The Qualifying battle pretty much sums it up with Hamilton beating Vettel 14 times and Vettel besting Hamilton 7 times, and 7 times he was out qualified by both Mercs. So that is telling in that in order to challenge the Silver Arrows, Vettel had to push to the limit having started behind, and stay there for complete race distances, and had to exceed the limit to find more speed. Twice he mucked it up on his own, but I wouldn't say he was terrible, not by a country mile. This year the Ferrari has been better only on a select few circuits and the Mercedes at most with the Red Bull in Verstappen's hands being a serious contender a couple of times. What no one has talked about in details as of yet (at least that I've seen) is that Red Bull's extreme rake setup, which is being copied now, only not to the same extreme, is in effect behaving much like ground effects and they're figuring out how to plant the car more solidly because of it. Coupled with their shorter wheelbase, the Red Bull can corner better and more quickly than everyone else which is how and why they dominate in certain sectors and tracks. As well, the Honda engine is also pretty damn fast this year and it still sounds incredible… Clearly the best sounding engine in F1.

The Ferrari this year slots in between the Mercs and the Red Bulls but it's usually not that far off in terms of pace. Leclerc made a mistake that cost him big points once, and Ferrari "strategies" cost him big time and Vettel as well to a lesser degree.

Revisionary work at it's best, in 2018 the Ferrari was the better car more often than not up to Monza which was round 14 two thirds of the way through the season, I believe in the appropriate thread we had it 9-5 to Ferrari?

Yet after Monza Hamilton had a 30 point lead despite having a mechanical failure in Austria against Vettel's 100% reliable car, the one fighting the uphill battle was Hamilton and not Vettel, after Monza fair enough the wheels started to fall off for Ferrari whereupon then you can compile all the nice stats in favour of Mercedes.

It's not revisionary in the least. It's reality. Too often people hear something and run with it and it becomes the gospel and the majority of the masses buy the grape koolaid, but it doesn't mean it is so. Go back and rewatch 2018 and you'll see that in the first 6 races Ferrari had the clear edge with it dwindling each week until Mercedes bridged the gap enough to challenge them on equal footing. But that lasted all of 2-3 weekends and then they took the lead in the development race by a small margin that grew. It was never easy for Mercedes or Hamilton, but the Mercedes definitely had the edge.

Does everyone here know that Schumacher broke his neck in a motorcycle race during his retirement? Healing from something like that once you're past thirty years old is no joke, nor is driving something with the cornering and braking forces of an F1 car. One might argue that Schumacher shouldn't have come back to help Mercedes-Benz develop their car and team, but one should not argue that he was the same racing driver that he was before his retirement. And if you think anyone is driving at his pre-retirement level today, then I can see why the FIA thinks DRS, multiple tire compound requirements, fuel use regs, and engine life standards that have most racing done at several seconds off the cars' natural paces are what the fans deserve. There's nobody today that could drop a TdF bicycle racer in the Alps because his training level was so high, or play pickup football with the German national team, or get out of a car looking like he'd just played chess when all the other drivers looked like they'd just been released from a tiger cage in the jungle.

_________________Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?

And if you think anyone is driving at his pre-retirement level today, then I can see why the FIA thinks DRS, multiple tire compound requirements, fuel use regs, and engine life standards that have most racing done at several seconds off the cars' natural paces are what the fans deserve. There's nobody today that could drop a TdF bicycle racer in the Alps because his training level was so high, or play pickup football with the German national team, or get out of a car looking like he'd just played chess when all the other drivers looked like they'd just been released from a tiger cage in the jungle.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think this is almost universally considered false by the F1 community itself. Schumacher is considered to have been the pioneer of modern fitness, not a level beyond the current grid. The reason Schumi looked so much better in comparison to his peers is that they weren't at the fitness level of modern drivers while he was. He was ahead of his time, not ahead of the current time.

But, on the other hand, you have an argument that Stirling Moss may not necessarily make the top ten due to lack of F1 title. This is even after he effectively gave one up by defending rival driver Mike Hawthorn from a penalty which would have relegated Hawthorn to runner-up to Moss.

Even then how many one time champions make the list?

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

I think they're actually both the same, to be in a GOAT argument first of all you have to be seen at least as the best of your era, I don't believe either fall into that category?This thread itself is about being a top 10 great, in that respect winning more than one title seems to be the first requirement?

Does it though? I'd argue that being viewed as one of the best (not the best) of the era is sufficient to be considered for the top 10. Otherwise, people who rate Senna above Prost, and Alonso above Hamilton, would - by the latter definition - exclude those from the list.I wasn't around to see Moss drive but have read articles that state that he went toe-to-toe with Fangio and imply that, had he been less 'gentlemanly' (for wont of a better word), would probably be a multi-WDC.This is a subjective discussion, so I'm not saying that your view is wrong (you do make some pertinent points). I'm simply counter-arguing it as I don't necessarily agree.

Does everyone here know that Schumacher broke his neck in a motorcycle race during his retirement? Healing from something like that once you're past thirty years old is no joke, nor is driving something with the cornering and braking forces of an F1 car. One might argue that Schumacher shouldn't have come back to help Mercedes-Benz develop their car and team, but one should not argue that he was the same racing driver that he was before his retirement. And if you think anyone is driving at his pre-retirement level today, then I can see why the FIA thinks DRS, multiple tire compound requirements, fuel use regs, and engine life standards that have most racing done at several seconds off the cars' natural paces are what the fans deserve. There's nobody today that could drop a TdF bicycle racer in the Alps because his training level was so high, or play pickup football with the German national team, or get out of a car looking like he'd just played chess when all the other drivers looked like they'd just been released from a tiger cage in the jungle.

I think this sets a record for the most number of miscomprehensions about Formula 1 in a single sentence in this forum's history, but breaking it down would take this thread wildly off topic.

But needless to say, on the one part of it that is touching on relevancy to this thread, Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel will be as fit as Schumacher was pre-retirement. One thing that did inhibit drivers being on the same level prior to last year, would have also affected Schumacher had he been racing. The cars were all struggling to get to the minimum weight so the drivers had to sacrifice personal health to keep their weight down for the race. This was not a problem during Schumacher's career as the cars were a lot simpler, but when you start adding in halos and battery packs and MGUs, it's a lot more difficult. Now there is a minimum seat/driver weight of 80kg it has meant the drivers can return to healthy weights and consequently a higher level of fitness.

The point I'm driving here is that the argument that a Vettel with multiple titles may not be in the GOAT conversation is a little contrary to the argument that a Moss with no titles may not be in that conversation.

I think they're actually both the same, to be in a GOAT argument first of all you have to be seen at least as the best of your era, I don't believe either fall into that category?

This thread itself is about being a top 10 great, in that respect winning more than one title seems to be the first requirement?

Not necessarily. Moss would be a legitimate choice in the top 10.

He doesn't appear on the top 10 lists that I've seen recently in respect to majority opinion.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

AUTOSPORT invited drivers who have raced in the Formula 1 world championship (including those who raced under F2 rules in 1952-1953) to vote for their top 10 "greatest" drivers of the world championship era.

And obviously, the later you make this kind of list, the different the drivers will be. In 50 years from now (exaggeration obviously) Prost or other drivers may only be a whisper, as newer drivers may have won many more GP's by that time.

However, drivers themselves ranked Moss in the top 10, not so long ago, so if that doesn't hold any water in Poker's agenda, then fine. For me it is much more relevant.

And if you think anyone is driving at his pre-retirement level today, then I can see why the FIA thinks DRS, multiple tire compound requirements, fuel use regs, and engine life standards that have most racing done at several seconds off the cars' natural paces are what the fans deserve. There's nobody today that could drop a TdF bicycle racer in the Alps because his training level was so high, or play pickup football with the German national team, or get out of a car looking like he'd just played chess when all the other drivers looked like they'd just been released from a tiger cage in the jungle.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think this is almost universally considered false by the F1 community itself. Schumacher is considered to have been the pioneer of modern fitness, not a level beyond the current grid. The reason Schumi looked so much better in comparison to his peers is that they weren't at the fitness level of modern drivers while he was. He was ahead of his time, not ahead of the current time.

Schumacher wasn't the pioneer of fitness. I've watched since 1976 and any number of drivers used fitness as a competitive factor even then. Lewis Hamilton spends too much time with Tommy Hilfiger and his hair dresser to have a shot at matching Schumacher in the gym. Schumacher wasn't just the fittest F1 driver, he was a guy who could show up professional athletes in their own areas of expertise. His commitment to training was complete. When Schumacher was at his best, refueling and hard grooved tires meant that every race was a series of sprints between refueling stops. It was nothing like today, where the drivers are just managing their fragile tires, managing their restricted fuel loads, and managing a power-limited drivetrain so it lasts a third of the season. It's the difference between racing and commuting. It also isn't just like he was the fittest driver in 1991. The competition had fifteen years to notice what he was doing and try to match it. Nobody could and nobody has come close since.

_________________Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?